Time to revisit a topic that irks me hard: indie authors dissing useless "publishers."  I use scare quotes because publishing options have  grown right along with self-publishing.  Back in the day author choices were limited to three--the Big Publishers,  a predatory vanity publisher, or self-publishing--but today complaining about "publishers" is a lot like complaining about "food." It's so broad a category it's meaningless.And yet people do it. Four times in the last week I've seen posts  that were all variations on this: "Why would I bother working with a publisher when they don't promote/market/support me or my book?"YAARRRGGHHHH  <I would insert hair-pulling-out graphic here but I am too lazy>Pull up an orange crate to the cider barrel, and Old Curmudgeon Karen will tell you a tale about publishing. First off, the word publish refers to making a book, not about what happens afterwards. The majority of what a publisher does is NOT marketing.PUBLISHERS DO A LOT OF BORING HARD EXPENSIVE THINGS FOR YOU SO YOU CAN FOCUS MORE ON WRITING. If I was being published by someone else I would not have to:

• locate all the right developmental, copy & proof editors for each of my works, negotiate with said editors on fees and schedules, or chase after them about deadlines. Plus I wouldn't have to PAY them.
• all the same issues for interior ebook formatting & for print
• same-same for cover design

That's a lot of time, money, and trouble avoided right there. I ALSO would be leaving to someone else the following tedious, expensive hassles:

• the PITA of getting books logged into the ISBN & copyright databases
• ditto the actual production of print books & posting to various sales
• ditto-ditto double-checking the results in same for errors

Yes, I would lose some creative control. But I would gain lots and lots and lots of time. And reduce stress.  That is a trade-off.  One I would gladly make, TBH.Even in the old days, the big publishing houses were never big into promoting books or authors outside NYC/the literary community. Until the late 80's, major book promotions really were not a thing period. The book industry kind of backed into major marketing efforts way later than most entertainment businesses.Publishers used to release most books the way mama turtles have babies. They made 'em, laid em out there, and the babies either swam or got eaten by seagulls.  If an author was already a big name--or impressed the heck out of Everyone at the Company--their book would get ads in the industry mags or the New York Review of Books or some targeted professional publication and they might even get a book tour. BUT.  BUTBUTBUT.  This was rarely an expectation for debut or midlist authors, at least not in the "all expenses paid" way. Unicorn rare.Most books got entries in the "new release" section of industry mags, were listed in the indexes, and might get promoted word-of-mouth by sales reps to librarians & booksellers. Those people would read and pass on recommendations of their own to book groups and local newspapers, and so on and so on.Do major publishers now give authors less marketing support after publication  than ever before? Absolutely. Is this a bad thing? YES. They also take on fewer authors, pay them lower royalties and engage in a slew of other practices that beggar the book world. That's kinda beside the point.The point is, marketing never has been the fundamental core of publishing. Ignoring that reality is petty and shortsighted. And pettiness irks me.Okay. Rant over.